Sunday, September 24, 2017

Judgement of Madras High Court Madurai Bench - Reg grant of increment to one who superannuated on 31.3.2010



THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Writ Petition(MD)No.994 of 2016
J.VADIVELU ... PETITIONER
Vs.
1)THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, RAMANATHAPURAM.
2)THE ASSISTANT ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, RAMANATHAPURAM 

DATED : 19.01.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

  Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent i.e. the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, relating to Na.Ka.No.777/A1/2014 dated 25.08.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to sanction increment to the petitioner which fell due on 01.04.2010 and consequently send revised pension proposals within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Honourable Court.

:ORDER

The petitioner was serving as a Middle School Graduate Headmaster in a Panchayat Union Middle
School at Ramanathapuram Taluk.He retired from service on 31.03.2010 on reaching the age of
superannuation. Since he was a teacher, he was continued upto the end of academic year.

2.His grievance is that when his increment fell due on 01.04.2010 for the service rendered   between 01.04.2009 and 31.03.2010, the same was declined by the impugned order dated 25.08.2014 by then second respondent. Hence, this writ petition.

3.Since the issue lies in a narrow compass and also the same is covered by a decision in
W.P(MD)No.22589 of 2010 dated 03.08.2011 which was confirmed by the Division Bench in
W.A(MD)No .2095 of 2011 dated 10.11.2011 that was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court  in C.C.No.10842 of 2013 dated 04.07.2013, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

4.It is not in dispute that the petitioner served between 01.04.2009 and 31.03.2010 and hence,   he sought for increment for the service rendered and the same cannot be denied. The aforesaid
judgment also took the same view.

5.In view of the same, the impugned order is quashed and a direction is issued to the second
respondent to sanction annual increment which fell due on 01.04.2010, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent is directed to send revised pension proposal, pursuant to sanction of annual increment within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.


GOVT of NCT of Delhi vs Somvir Rana-----Similarly placed

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Diary No(s). 23663/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-03-2017 in WP No. 2634/2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SOMVIR RANA (TGT ENG) & ORS. Respondent(s)
(WITH APPLN(S) FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP-IA
No.77457/2017)WITH DIARY NO.23440/2017 (XIV)(WITH APPLN(S) FOR IA No.78434/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)
Date : 01-09-2017
These petitions were called on for hearing today.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R
Delay condoned.
We find that there are several matters in which the aggrieved employees have been going to the Tribunal, then to the High Court and thereafter those matters are brought before this Court at the instance of the Union of India/NCT of Delhi. Once the question, in principle, has been settled, it is only appropriate on the part of the Government of India to issue a Circular so that it will save the time of the Court and the Administrative Departments apart from avoiding unnecessary and avoidable expenditure. The present situation is that the stepping up is available only to those who have approached the Court. But since the issue has otherwise become final, we direct the Government of India to immediately look into the matter and issue appropriate orders for granting the pay-scale so that people need not unnecessarily travel either to the Tribunal or the High Court or this Court.
With the above observations and directions, the special leave petitions are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENU DIWAN)
COURT MASTER ASST. REGISTRAR




IN   THE   HIGH   COURT   OF   DELHI   AT   NEW   DELHI

W.P.(C)   2634/2017,   CM   APPL   11450/2017

GOVERNMENT   OF   NCT   OF   DELHI   &   AN...Versus SOMVIR   RANA   &   ORS

CORAM: HON'BLE   MR.   JUSTICE   SANJIV   KHANNA HON'BLE   MR.   JUSTICE   CHANDER   SHEKHAR

ORDER   23.03.2017

The impugned order dated 04.04.2016 passed by the Principal Bench of the   Central   Administrative   Tribunal   (Tribunal,   for   short),   allows   the   OA
No.3217/2009, filed   by the   promotee   Trained   Graduate   Teachers, who   are   the
respondents   before   us.
2.   Respondents   were   promoted   as   Trained   Graduate   Teachers   before   or   after
01.01.2006.
3.   The   question   raised   and   answered   in   favour   of   the   respondents   by  the

Tribunal   relates   to   fixation   of   their   pay   under   the   Central   Civil   Services

(Revised   Pay)   Rules,   2008   (Rules for   short)   and   whether   there   can  be   two

pay   scales   for   the   same   post   of   Trained   Graduate   Treachers,  one   for

promotees   and   the   other   for   direct   recruits.

2.   The   petitioners   herein   had   applied   Rule   7,   which   postulates   multiplying   the

pre-revised   basic   pay   with   1.86   factor   and   Rule   13,   which   provides   for

granting   one   increment   equal   to   3%   of   the   pay   band   and   pay   being  rounded

off   to   the   next   multiplier   of 10. As   far   as   new direct   appointees   are   concerned,

they   are   given   benefit   of   entry-level   pay   indicated   in   Section   II  of  Part-A   of

the   First   Schedule   of   the   Rules.   The   entry-level   pay   of  direct   appointee

Trained   Graduate   Teachers   was   higher   than   the   pay   scale   of   the   respondents

fixed   under   Rule   7   read   with   Rule   13   of   the   Rules.

4.This   anomaly   was   noticed   by   the   petitioners   themselves,   who   had

issued   clarification   dated   13.03.2009,   which   reads   as   under:

“I   am   directed   to   say   that   matter   relating   to   stepping   up   of
pay   of   Seniors   with   the   directly   recruited   juniors,   recruited   on   or
Central   Pay   Commission   was   taken   up   with   Deptt.   of   Expenditure
Ministry   of   Finance.   It   has   been   decided   that   stepping   up   of   pay   of
seniors   will   be   permitted   with   reference   to   their   directly
recruited   juniors   who   are   recruited   on   or   after   01.01.2006   and
whose   basic   pay   is   more   than   that   of   the   seniors   subject   to   the
following   conditions:-

(a) Stepping   up   the   basic   pay   of   seniors   under   the   above
provisions   can   be   claimed   only   in   the   case   of   those
cadres   which   have   an   element   of   direct   recruitment
and   cases   where   a   directly   recruited   junior   actually
drawing   more   basic   pay   than   the   seniors.   In   such
cases,   the   basic   pay   of   the   seniors   will   be   stepped   up
with   reference   to   the   basic   pay   of   the   juniors.
(b) Using   the   above   provision,   Government   servants
cannot   claim   stepping   up   their   revised   basic   pay   with
reference   to   entry   pay   in   the   revised   pay   structure   for
direct   recruits   appointed   on   or   after   1.1.2006   as   laid
down   in   Section-II   of   part   A   of   First   Schedule   to   the
CCS   (RP)   Rules,   2008,   if   their   cadre   does   not   have
any   element   of   directed   recruitment   or   in   cases,   where
no   junior   is   drawing   basic   pay   higher   than   them.

(c) Stepping   up   of   pay   of   the   seniors   in   accordance   with
the   above   provisions   shall   not   be   applicable   in   cases
where   direct   recruits   have   been   granted   advance
increments   at   the   time   of   recruitment.

2.This   issues   with   the   approval   of   the   Ministry   Finance
(Department   of   Expenditure   Implementation   Cell),   Govt.   of   India.”

5.The   above   clarification   notices   that   pay scales   at   the   same   post   in   some

cadres   in   the   case   of   promotees   were   lower   than   the   pay  scales  applicable  to

the   direct   recruits.   To   correct   this   anomaly,   the   clarification   states   that

stepping   up   of   basic   pay   of   the   seniors   would   be   permissible   in  the case   of

those   cadres   
(i)   where   appointment   by way of   direct   recruit   is   permissible   and

(ii)   when   direct   recruited   junior   actually   draws   basic   pay   more  than   the

seniors.

6.This   clarification   has   not   been   accepted   by   the   Tribunal   and,   in   our

opinion,   rightly.   The   anomaly   and   discrepancy   of   fixing   lower   pay   scale   for

promotees   amounts   to   invidious   discrimination   and   violates   of   Article   14   of 
the   Constitution.   The   same   post   with   identical   duties   and   responsibilities,   ex

facie   cannot   have   two   different   pay   scales, one   for   the   promotees   and   the

other   for   direct   recruits. The   difficulty   in   accepting   the   plea   of   stepping   up   in

terms   of   the   clarification   dated   13.03.2009,   is   the   second   condition   that

requires, the direct recruits should have actually joined before any stepping up

of   pay   can   be   granted.The   date   of   joining   would   be   different   as   filling   up   of

the   direct   recruitment   vacancies   in   the   cadre   would   depend   upon   vacancy

position,   selection,   etc.   This   is   unacceptable   as   it   would   be   fortuitous   and

even   whimsical.   In   any   case,   the   same   post   cannot   have   two   pay   scales   one

for   the   promotee   and   other   for   the   direct   recruit   for   it   violates   the   principle   of  “equal   pay   for   equal   work.”   Stepping   up   of   pay   to   be   granted   on satisfaction

of   the   stipulated   conditions   would   not   rectify   and   undo   the  discrepancy   and

inconsistency   inherent   when   two   different   pay   scales   are   stipulated   for   the

same   post.

7. When   and   after   initial   pay   of   promotee   Trained   Graduate   Teacher   is

fixed   in   terms   of   the   order   of   the   Tribunal,   increment   would   be calculated   and

payable   as   in   cases   covered   by   Section   II   of   Part   A   of   the   first schedule of   the

Rules   as   applicable   to   the   direct   recruits.

8.Similar,   though   not   identical   controversy   had   arisen   before   this   Court
in   WP   (C)   No.8058/2015,   Union   of   India   Vs.   Malbika   Deb   Gupta,   decided

on   04.11.2006. The   writ   petition   of   the   Union   of   India   was   dismissed   after

referring   to   the   rule   position   and   the   illustrations   given   in   the   Rules.

9. However,   we   clarify   that   the   dismissal   of   the   writ   petition   would   not

have   any   bearing   and   does   not   amount   to   acceptance   of   the   contention   raised

in   some   of   the   OAs,   which   have   been   disposed   of   by   the   impugned   order

wherein   the   respondent-employees   had   submitted   that   the   basic   revised   pay

should   be   multiplied   by   the   factor   of   1.86.

10. For   the   aforesaid   reasons,   we   do   not   find   any   merit   in   the   present   writ

petition   and   the   same   is   dismissed.

SANJIV   KHANNA,   J


CHANDER   SHEKHAR,   J
MARCH   23,   2017




CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH-Delhi
0.A. No. 1368/2014 M.A. No. 1169/2014 .New Delhi, this the 8th day of May, 2014
HONDBLE MR. V. ADAY KUMAR, MEMBER (3) HONDBLE MR. V.N. GAUR, MEMBER (A)
Somvir Rana [Tgt (Eng.)and others  vs The Chief Secretary Govt, of NCT of Delhi and others
4. Deputy Controller of Accounts, (Education), GNCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi. .. Respondents
ORDER (ORAL)
Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Heard the learned counsel for the applicants.
2. MA 1169/2014 filed under Rule 4(s)(a) of C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1987, for joining together, is allowed.
3. The applicants, who are working as Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) in the Govt, of NCT of Delhi, have filed the present O.A. seeking the following relief:
□i) Issue a direction to the respondents to fix the Initial Basic Pay or Entry Pay as per 6th Central Pay Commission Report from the date of promotion or holding the posts on or after 01.01.2006 and also pay the arrears along with the interest thereon.
ii) Cost of litigation be awarded.
iii) Pass such other orders or direction which the Honorable Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests and circumstances of the case.
4. It is submitted that the applicants have made number of representations to the respondents requesting them in this regard and one such latest representation dated 25.04.2013 is placed at Annexure A-5, but the respondents have not passed any orders on the said representations
5. In the circumstances, the O.A. is disposed of, at the admission stage itself, without going into the other merits of the case, by directing the Respondents to consider the representations of the applicants and to pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order thereon, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

(V.N. GAUR) (V. ADAY KUMAR) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (IJ)